The associations of cultural worldviews,political orientation,and trust with COVID-19 risk beliefs in the U.S.

Given that risk beliefs predict engagement in behaviors to prevent disease, it is important to understand the factors associated with risk beliefs. In the present paper, we conducted path analyses to investigate the associations of belief systems (political orientation and cultural worldviews of individualism and hierarchy) with COVID-19 risk beliefs (i.e., perceived likelihood, perceived severity, and worry about disease; Studies 1 and 2), and the indirect effect through trust in information sources in these relationships (Study 1). Two online panels of U.S. adults were surveyed at three timepoints during the COVID-19 pandemic (Study 1: baseline n = 1,667, 1-year follow-up n = 551; Study 2: n = 404). Results of path analyses indicated that, across studies and timepoints, when controlling for political orientation, trust, and demographic factors, greater individualism had consistent significant direct effects on lower perceived severity and worry about COVID-19, whereas greater hierarchy had consistent significant direct effects on lower perceived severity. However, after accounting for cultural worldviews of individualism and hierarchy (and trust and demographic factors), none of the associations among political orientation and any of the three COVID-19 risk beliefs were significant. The test of indirect effects indicated that individualism and hierarchy were indirectly associated with lower perceived severity of and worry about COVID-19 through less trust. The findings suggest that cultural worldviews of individualism and hierarchy play a role in shaping people's risk beliefs.     

COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance: A Case of Interplay Between Political and Health Dimensions

Vaccines are essential for the eradication of diseases. Yet for many reasons, individuals do not embrace them completely. In the COVID-19 pandemic and with the possibility of the Brazilian population's immunization against the disease, both political and health-related dimensions might have had a role in individual COVID-19 vaccination acceptance. In two studies (n = 974), we tested the hypothesis that participants' vaccination acceptance is related to their past vote in the 2018 Brazilian presidential election (being or not being a Jair Bolsonaro voter) and their different levels of perceived vulnerability to disease (PVD). We further tested whether Bolsonaro's opposition or ambiguous messages towards vaccination (vs. control) increased vaccination rejection among those who have (vs. have not) voted for him and who are low (vs. high) in PVD. Results show that Bolsonaro (vs. non-Bolsonaro) voters accepted less vaccination, with higher rejection rates when participants expressed low (vs. high) PVD. Also, when primed either with Bolsonaro's opposed or ambiguous messages towards COVID-19 vaccination, such participants accepted less vaccines (vs. participants primed with neutral information). These findings are the first to show that the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is related to their past vote and leadership influence but also different levels of perceived vulnerability to disease.     

The effects of social comparison,emotion induction,and parent vaccination status on parental intentions for COVID-19 vaccine uptake in children

Parental vaccine hesitancy—delays in vaccine uptake for children—is a significant public health concern. Using an online adult sample of U.S. parents (N = 183), the current research experimentally examined how exposure to cautious or risky social comparison models on social media (in terms of their COVID-19 beliefs and behaviors) influenced parental intentions to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 in the early stages of the pandemic. Additionally, we examined whether the influence of social comparison models was moderated by emotional state (fear or contentment) and parental vaccination status. Overall, we found that parents exposed to cautious (vs. risky) comparison models and vaccinated (vs. unvaccinated) parents reported greater vaccine intentions for their children. We further found that vaccination intentions were highest among unvaccinated parents after exposure to cautious (vs. risky) comparison models, whereas intentions were highest among vaccinated parents after exposure to risky (vs. cautious) comparison models (but only when induced to feel content). Overall, our findings highlight the importance of understanding the additive and interactive impact of psychological and situational factors in shaping parental vaccine hesitancy.     

“I'm Moderna,what are you?” Evidence that people favor those who received their same brand COVID-19 vaccine

In two studies, we investigated the extent to which people are biased toward people with the same COVID-19 vaccine brand using a monetary allocation task. Informed by theoretical approaches to intergroup bias and the minimal-groups paradigm, we expected that, when deciding how to allocate financial resources among three different people—each with an equal need for assistance but a different COVID-19 vaccine brand—people would allocate more money, on average, to those who received the same versus different vaccine brand than participants personally received. We found in Study 1 (N = 94) that people given a hypothetical $10.00 experimental endowment allocated an average of $2.00 more when a person was a member of their vaccine ingroup than to those from their vaccine brand outgroup. We replicated this effect in Study 2 (N = 219), finding that people continued to allocate more money ($1.42) to a person from their vaccine brand ingroup versus those from their vaccine brand outgroup. Taken together, this work suggests that, among vaccinated people, the brand of another person's vaccine meaningfully influences the allocation of monetary resources and that people are biased toward people with the same COVID-19 vaccine brand. Implications for social identity theories are discussed.     

Collective views of vaccination predict vaccine hesitancy and willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine

We examined the association between sociodemographic factors, views of vaccines as being an individual choice to protect oneself versus a collective choice to protect others, general vaccine hesitancy, and willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In a sample of adults (N = 619; 33% non-white), we showed that demographic factors explain significant variance in both vaccine hesitancy and willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Viewing vaccines as an individual choice to protect oneself explained additional variance in vaccine hesitancy. However, people who viewed vaccines as a collective choice to protect others showed both less vaccine hesitancy and greater willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. These findings suggest that promoting prosocial attitudes about vaccinations may decrease vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake.     

Why do U.S. conservatives take fewer COVID-19 precautions? The role of worry,perceived risk,and governmental trust

Research suggests a U.S. political ideology gap for taking COVID-19 precautions, but we do not know the role of cognitive risk (assessed here as perceived risk) and affective risk (assessed here as worry) in explaining why conservative Americans participated in fewer recommended precautions (e.g., mask wearing) and whether governmental trust attenuates the effect. We predicted that conservatives (compared with liberals) would take fewer precautions because they thought they were less at risk and were less worried about COVID-19, but that this would be more pronounced for those with low governmental trust. In this study, U.S. adults (representative sample: N = 738; M_age = 46.8; 52% women; 78% white) who had not had COVID-19 took two online surveys 2 weeks apart during the first wave of the pandemic (April 2020). Participants reported ideology, perceived risk of getting or dying of COVID-19, worry about COVID-19, and trust in the CDC and state officials at baseline. At follow-up, participants reported on COVID-19 precautions: (1) prevention behavior participation (e.g., mask wearing) and (2) behavioral willingness for future behaviors (e.g., vaccination). Results showed that, politically conservative Americans took fewer precautions due to lower worry (but unexpectedly not due to lower perceived risk). As predicted, when trust was high, the ideology gap was muted for predicting precautions as well as for predicting perceived risk and worry. In sum, conservatives worried less about COVID-19 which predicted fewer precautions, but trust in governmental institutions reduced this ideological gap. Improving governmental trust could be one fruitful path to increasing COVID-19 precautions.     

Prosocial orientation and COVID-19 vaccine willingness in the U.S.

Despite evidence of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and their wide availability, many in the U.S. are not vaccinated. Research demonstrates that prosocial orientations predict COVID-19 health behaviors (e.g., social distancing) and vaccination intentions, however, little work has examined COVID-19 vaccination willingness in the U.S. since vaccines were approved. Findings from two U.S. samples show that, in contrast to other COVID-19 health behaviors, vaccine willingness in unvaccinated people is unrelated to prosocial orientation. Study 2 demonstrates that the lack of association between vaccine willingness and prosocial orientation in unvaccinated participants was specific to those with stronger beliefs that COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective. Thus, in prosocial people, perceptions of vaccines' ineffectiveness may undermine COVID-19 vaccine willingness.     

Moralizing the COVID-19 Pandemic: Self-Interest Predicts Moral Condemnation of Other's Compliance,Distancing, and Vaccination

The emergence of the novel coronavirus has put societies under tremendous pressure to instigate massive and rapid behavior change. Throughout history, an effective strategy to facilitate novel behaviors has been to morally condemn those who do not behave in an appropriate way. Accordingly, here, we investigate if complying with the advice of health authorities—for example, to physically distance or vaccinate—has emerged as a moralized issue during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Study 1, we rely on data (N = 94K) from quota-sampled rolling cross-sectional online surveys from eight countries (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the United Kingdom, and the United States). We find that large majorities find it justified to condemn those who do not keep a distance to others in public and around half of respondents blame ordinary citizens for the severity of the pandemic. Furthermore, we identify the most important predictors of condemnation to be behavior change and personal concern, while institutional trust and social distrust also play large but less consistent roles. Study 2 offers a registered replication of our findings on a representative sample of Britons (N = 1.5K). It shows that both moralization and condemnation of both vaccination and general compliance are best predicted by self-interested considerations.     

Examining approaches to encourage COVID-19 vaccination on social media

Following the release of the first COVID-19 vaccinations many people utilized social media to promote vaccination among their social circles. These attempts to persuade others to get vaccinated ranged from positive encouragement (e.g., emphasizing the prosocial benefits and positive outcomes) to shame and threats (e.g., name calling and threating to end friendships over vaccination status). The present study investigated how these different social media messages affected COVID-19 vaccination intentions. In June 2021, shortly after vaccines had been made freely available to anyone over the age of 16 in the United States, unvaccinated participants read a manipulated Twitter message designed to be either encouraging or shaming. Message-type did not significantly affect intentions to become vaccinated against COVID-19; however, participants who saw the encouraging message reported that the post made them feel more likely to get vaccinated. Self-efficacy was also manipulated but did not reveal any significant effects. Additional analyses suggest that having personal experience with COVID-19 moderates reactions to these different messages. We discuss limitations and promising avenues for future research on the effects of social media messages on health behaviors.     

Taking Care of Each Other: How Can We Increase Compliance with Personal Protective Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Chile?

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, personal protective measures (e.g., social distancing, handwashing, and mask wearing) have been adopted as a cornerstone to limit the spread of the disease. Yet, the effectiveness of these measures depends on people's levels of adherence. In this article, we apply social-psychological research to the study of compliance with personal protective measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile. We consider three possible models underlying adherence: (1) sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors, (2) instrumental factors, and (3) normative factors. We draw on data from a longitudinal nonrepresentative panel study (Study 1, n = 32,304) and a cross-sectional representative survey (Study 2, n = 1,078) to explore the impact of these different factors on personal protective measures compliance. Findings show the strongest support for the role of instrumental and normative factors, in that people who comply with protective measures report to a greater extent that relatives and friends comply too and tend to perceive high risk of COVID-19. We finish by proposing policy recommendations to promote effective strategies to contain the spread of the virus.     

Differences in the importance of romantic structures among transgender and cisgender adults during the COVID-19 pandemic

The stressors of the global COVID-19 pandemic have led to an increased need for support. For adults, romantic relationships often represent an environment of emotional support and stability; as such, attitudes toward—and particularly the importance of—romantic relationships may have shifted as a result of the pandemic. The present cross-sectional study explores how U.S. transgender (n = 99) and cisgender people (n = 1886) report whether they have perceived a change in their feelings about the importance of long-term romantic structures (i.e., committed relationships, monogamy, cohabiting with a romantic partner, and marriage) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results found that transgender people reported a more positive perceived change in importance placed on all four romantic items relative to cisgender people. Different forms of stress (e.g., social, financial, health) associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to an increased need, and subsequent desire, for social connection and support in the form of romantic relationships among transgender individuals to a greater extent than cisgender individuals, perhaps in part due to the additional layers of stress transgender people must navigate. Results are discussed through the lens of the minority stress framework.     

Women's social experiences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A 3-part measurement burst study among women in midlife with health risks

Women in midlife (ages 40–60) with elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) often rely on social networks during times of high stress. Precautions against the spread of COVID-19—particularly stay-at-home-orders—could have limited positive social experiences during a stressful time, but also could have reduced unwanted negative social experiences. This report presents findings from an ecological momentary assessment study that used 3 bursts of 5 surveys per day for 5 days, to test for changes in women's social experiences: prior to COVID-19 (2019), during stay-at-home-orders (April-May 2020), and during initial reopening (August-September 2020). Participants were women aged 40–60 with one or more CVD risk factors (e.g., hypertension; N = 35, M_Age = 51, M_BMI = 32.2 kg/m²). Momentary reports showed that the number of positive interactions experienced in daily life did not significantly change from before to during the pandemic; positive interactions were more variable during stay-at-home orders than pre-COVID, but rebounded by initial reopening (to pre-COVID levels). In contrast, the number of negative social interactions and social comparisons decreased from before COVID to stay-at-home orders, and remained lower during initial reopening; these experiences were also less variable during stay-at-home orders and initial reopening than before COVID-19. Thus, in a vulnerable group of women with health risks, there is little evidence that social experiences worsened during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic; decreases in (potentially) negative social experiences may be a small but beneficial side effect of short-term public health precautions.     

Distrustful Complacency and the COVID-19 Vaccine: How Concern and Political Trust Interact to Affect Vaccine Hesitancy

We test the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is attributable to distrustful complacency—an interactive combination of low concern and low trust. Across two studies, 9,695 respondents from different parts of Britain reported their level of concern about COVID-19, trust in the UK government, and intention to accept or refuse the vaccine. Multilevel regression analysis, controlling for geographic area and relevant demographics, confirmed the predicted interactive effect of concern and trust. Across studies, respondents with both low trust and low concern were 10%–22% more vaccine hesitant than respondents with either high trust or high concern, and 26%–29% more hesitant than respondents with both high trust and high concern. Results hold equally among White, Black, and Muslim respondents, consistent with the view that regardless of mean-level differences, a common process underlies vaccine hesitancy, underlining the importance of tackling distrustful complacency both generally and specifically among unvaccinated individuals and populations.     

“I'll wait for the English one”: COVID-19 vaccine country of origin,national identity,and their effects on vaccine perceptions and uptake willingness

Vaccines can play a crucial role in reducing the negative outcomes of pandemics. In this paper we explore how vaccine perceptions and uptake willingness can be affected by vaccine-related information, the vaccine's country of origin, and national identity. Study 1 (N = 800) showed that a vaccine manufactured by China was perceived more negatively compared to vaccines from the UK, Germany, and Chile. Providing vaccine effectiveness information (83%) increased preference for waiting for an alternative vaccine and reduced perceived effectiveness of a vaccine from China. Brexit supporters perceived vaccines as less safe in general, and particularly thought of a vaccine from China as less competent, effective, and trustworthy, and were less prepared to have it. Study 2 (N = 601) largely replicated findings of Study 1 regarding the effects of a vaccine's country of origin. Moreover, participants who reported a higher sense of British superiority reported more negative attitudes towards a vaccine from China. However, apart from the aforementioned main effects of Study 2, our attempt to manipulate British identity vis a vis a Global identity in order to examine particular national-identity related outcomes was not successful. Overall, vaccine characteristics can interact with various social psychological factors, potentially affecting people's perceptions and willingness to uptake particular measures to support personal and public health.     

Chronic illness and COVID-19-related risk and protective behaviors

People with chronic illnesses are at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Still, little is known about whether such an increased risk relates to COVID-19-related protective behaviors among those with chronic illness. This study compares the self-reported COVID-19 risky and protective behaviors—specifically physically distancing, handwashing, and having houseguests—of people (N = 936) (1) living with chronic illnesses or (2) cohabiting with someone with chronic illness to those who fall in neither category at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020). Study results were mixed: people with a chronic illness were more likely to have had houseguests in the past 5 days and less likely to have increased their handwashing in response to the pandemic, but were also more likely to physical distance when outside the home. Those cohabiting with someone with a chronic illness were more likely to have had houseguests, but did not differ in other outcomes.     

The association of families’ socioeconomic and demographic characteristics with parents’ perceived barriers to returning to youth sport following the COVID-19 pandemic

Developmentally appropriate sport contexts have the potential to positively influence young people’s physiological, psychological, and social outcomes. However, little is known about how families returned to sport in the wake of COVID-19-related restrictions or how socioeconomic and demographic factors influenced parents’ perceptions of barriers to returning. A nationally representative sample (N = 6183) of American youth sport parents completed a questionnaire in which they provided demographic information and answered questions related to the barriers they perceived in returning to sport, such as the risk of their child getting sick. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the relationships among a range of socioeconomic and demographic factors and these barriers to returning. Results suggest that parents from racially minoritized and urban neighborhoods held higher levels of concern over health-related and practical barriers to returning to sport. Findings highlight the importance of designing available, equitable, and appropriate youth sport contexts.     

Developing a Measure of the Impact of COVID-19 Social Distancing on Household Conflict and Cohesion

This report introduces the COVID-19 Family Environment Scale (CHES), which aims to measure the impact of social distancing due to COVID-19 on household conflict and cohesion. Existing measures do not capture household experiences relevant to the pandemic, in which families are largely confined to their homes while sharing a life-threatening situation. Using best practice guidelines, we developed a pool of items and revised them with review by a panel of experts, and cognitive interviewing with community respondents. We administered the CHES by online survey to 3,965 adults. The CHES consists of 15 items for each of two subscales, household conflict (α = .847) and household cohesion (α = .887). Exploratory factor analysis yielded two factors, corresponding to the intended conflict and cohesion items, which accounted for 29% of variance. Confirmatory factor analysis partially supported the 2-factor model (RMSEA = .057; CFI = .729, TLI = .708, and SRMR = .098). The CHES also contains 25 optional items to describe respondent and household characteristics, and household-level COVID-19 exposure. The CHES, publicly available at https://elcentro.sonhs.miami.edu/research/measures-library/covid-19/index.html , provides a tool for measuring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on important determinants of resilience in the face of major stressful events. Further work is needed to address the factor structure and establish validity of the CHES.